Legislature(2015 - 2016)ANCH LIO BUILDING
05/07/2015 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB1001 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB1001 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
FIRST SPECIAL SESSION
May 7, 2015
1:35 p.m.
[NOTE: Meeting took place in Anchorage, Alaska at the
Legislative Information Office]
1:35:51 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Neuman called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Pat Pitney, Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor; Gary Folger, Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety; Lauree Morton, Executive
Director, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault,
Department of Public Safety; Representative Matt Claman.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Representative Bryce Edgmon; Representative David
Guttenberg; Representative Cathy Munoz; Michael Hanley,
Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development; Sana Efird, Assistant Commissioner, Department
of Health and Social Services; Jon Sherwood, Deputy
Commissioner, Medicaid and Health Care Policy, Department
of Health and Social Services; Christy Lawton, Director,
Office of Children's Services, Department of Health and
Social Services; Bernard Chastain, Captain, Alaska Wildlife
Troopers, Department of Public Safety.
SUMMARY
HB 1001 APPROP: OPER. BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS/AM APPRO
HB 1001 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 1001
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs, capitalizing funds, making
reappropriations, making capital appropriations, and
making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
1:36:00 PM
Co-Chair Neuman addressed the day's agenda and recognized
Senator Cathy Giessel, Senator Donny Olson, and
Representative Andy Josephson in the audience. He discussed
the activities of the previous day's meeting, explaining
that the work had led to this day's discussion of the
public education funding formula. He offered a historical
review of the FY 15 fiscal legislative action involving the
fund. He relayed that Pat Pitney had been asked to discuss
the amount of money necessary in order to bring the base
student allocation (BSA) back to FY 15 levels. He reviewed
that the legislature had passed legislation that froze the
state's debt reimbursement for new schools: a 5 year
moratorium. He added that school districts had also been
affected by the freezing of union salaries. He recognized
Representative Kito in the audience.
1:40:22 PM
PAT PITNEY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, noted that Michael Hanley,
Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development, was available via teleconference. She said
that, not counting the one-time funds given in the
previously passed HB 278, just the BSA level would be an
addition of $4.5 million.
Co-Chair Neuman relayed that the funding mechanism used
approximately $123 million from the public education fund,
and $118 million from Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation (AGDC), neither of which would be available in
in FY 17. He asked whether the governor planned to submit a
budget that reflected a downward trend in spending.
Ms. Pitney replied that the governor had worked to realize
spending savings. She presented the analogy of state
funding as, "right pocket money and left pocket money", in
which the $123 and $118 million were not counted as
unrestricted general fund. She clarified that the basis of
those funds had been unrestricted general funds, and
continued to look to the school districts as such. She said
that the governor would submit an education budget similar
to the current education budget in terms of spending,
regardless of which pocket of money the funds were pulled
from. She furthered that there would unlikely be
significant education reductions in the governor's budget
for FY 17, nor would there be reductions to other state
agencies that equaled FY 16 cuts. She noted that many
agencies had already been cut between 10 and 30 percent;
additional reductions would be made in state agency
operations, but education would be prioritized in the FY 17
budget.
Representative Gattis understood that the governor did not
expect to reduce education spending in the future. She
wondered why the $32 million had been removed from the
governor's originally proposed budget.
1:44:00 PM
Ms. Pitney replied that the governor's original proposal
had reflected a 2.5 percent reduction in funds. She
furthered that the governor's original state agency
reductions had totaled just under 6 percent, the least of
which had been taken from the area of education. She
reiterated that the Walker Administration would protect the
education budget as much as was possible, while taking into
consideration the current fiscal climate.
Representative Gara believed that the Public Education Fund
would need to be used in small amounts over the next few
years in order to stabilize education funding during the
fiscal downturn. He asked where the forward funding could
be found in the governor's latest proposal.
Ms. Pitney replied that the governor's bill restored the
$16.5 million, but did not address the loss that had
occurred in the recent conference committee.
Representative Gara surmised that the Public Education Fund
was no longer in existence under the current bill version.
Ms. Pitney replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara asked whether there was a location to
"park" the $1.2 billion to use over the upcoming years to
avoid cuts in education spending.
1:47:27 PM
Ms. Pitney replied that it was possible.
Co-Chair Neuman noted that Ms. Pitney had provided answers
to questions from the prior day (copy on file).
Representative Gara observed that the problem with the
Public Education Fund, should the $1.2 billion be
reinstated, was that the money could only be used to fund
the BSA, and without enough money the BSA would be short
funded. He asked whether it would be possible to create a
sub-education account through the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC) capital account.
Ms. Pitney thought that the concept was an interesting one.
She spoke to a way in which capital funds had been handled
in a similar manner. She thought that restricting funds for
public education use would need to be written into statute.
Representative Gara wondered whether a sub-account could be
created without creating a statute.
1:51:11 PM
Ms. Pitney understood legislative approval would be needed
to name a fund.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether the $32 million cut to
education had been in acknowledgement by the administration
that education should share in budget reductions.
Ms. Pitney answered that the administration had focused on
the one-time nature of the education funds, while
maintaining the integrity of the BSA. She said that reports
had been commissioned addressing the BSA question in order
to facilitate an open and transparent discussion. She
stressed that there were additional reductions that could
be made to education, but that they would be minimal as
education was a key priority to the Walker Administration.
Vice-Chair Saddler understood that further reductions could
be made to education, but that the administration would
like the department to take less reductions than other
departments.
Ms. Pitney replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Saddler queried the circumstances under which
education would take reductions.
Ms. Pitney replied that education funds should be reduced
as a last resort.
Vice-Chair Saddler surmised that education was a top
priority for Governor Walker and reductions in education
spending would be made as a last resort.
Ms. Pitney pondered the intent of the line of questioning.
She reiterated that education was one of the top priorities
for the administration.
Co-Chair Neuman recognized Representative Millett in the
gallery.
Representative Wilson requested a representative from
Legislative Budget and Audit speak to the studies Ms.
Pitney mentioned. She felt that Ms. Pitney was misinformed
as to the information contained in the studies. She
described the administrative philosophy concerning
education as, "all about the funding and not necessarily
about the accountability of where our children are on being
compared to the rest of the children in the U.S."
1:55:02 PM
Ms. Pitney retorted that many variable impacted student
performance. She furthered that administration held the
desire to see the highest student performance possible and
was open to programs that would provide the greatest
learning outcomes. She deferred further explanation to the
commissioner.
[Anchorage could not hear commissioner online for some
reason]
Representative Wilson asserted that Alaska funded education
at a higher level than most other states but did not get a
high return on the investment. She contended that the
department was failing to assess underperforming schools,
and make improvements, which was required under statute.
Ms. Pitney deferred the question to the commissioner.
Co-Chair Neuman recognized Representative Vasquez in the
gallery.
1:57:34 PM
AT EASE
2:00:21 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Wilson restated her question.
MICHAEL HANLEY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), replied that the
department took their responsibility to underperforming
schools seriously. He said that the model of how that was
done had been alter over the past few years. He shared that
the new model was more collaborative, employing 12 coaches
that worked directly with schools that were
underperforming.
Co-Chair Neuman recognized Representative Mike Chennault in
the gallery.
Representative Wilson queried the anticipated average rate
of spending per student when the current range of spending
per student, per year, was $7,000 to $48,000.
Commissioner Hanley answered that funding was based on the
many variables; including the BSA, size factors, and
geographic differences. He believed that the aforementioned
study would have some insight.
Representative Wilson expressed dissatisfaction with the
response. She reiterated her question pertaining to the
anticipated cost per student, per year.
Commissioner Hanley replied that he did not have a number.
He said that the court had found that the department was
meeting its constitutional responsibility in regard to
adequately funding schools.
Representative Wilson believed that the issue was about
accountability. She asserted that there were students in
districts in the state that were not receiving an adequate
education. She felt that further accountability measures
should be taken so that children did not end up lost in the
system. She wondered what was "so magical" about the $1.2
billion figure.
Ms. Pitney rebutted that the amount of money requested was
the full BSA, established by the legislature. She said that
reports from the aforementioned studies, which would be
available in summer 2015, would spur further discussion.
She stressed that the administration was supportive in
addressing accountability and learning outcomes; it was
important to the state that student's learned as much as
possible.
2:04:48 PM
Ms. Pitney relayed that the administration looked forward
to conversations about achieving the best student outcomes
in the state.
Representative Gattis referred to many emails she received
about "fully funding" education. She wondered what a "fully
funded" education system meant. She wondered if an increase
to the BSA would "fully fund" education. She said that the
legislature had increased education spending over the
years, surpassing inflation. She felt that at that rate the
state would only be able to fund the one administrative
department in the future. She contended that the
legislature had not cut the BSA, it just had not added the
funding agreed upon in HB 278.
Ms. Pitney replied that the request level the
administration had put forward was to meet the BSA
established in HB 278. She lamented that the administration
had eliminated from their budget the one-time funding that
was over and above the BSA. She furthered that in the
opinion of educators, even HB 278 had not established
sufficient funding for education. She asserted that
education would always benefit from additional funding.
Representative Gattis asked what the BSA would be if the
funds were added back into the budget.
Ms. Pitney replied that the BSA would be $5,580.
Commissioner Hanley offered verification of the BSA number.
Representative Gattis stated that $5,880 was where the BSA
began before it went through "all these different
machinations" resulting in a per student payment that
ranged from $7,000 to $50,000 per student. She echoed her
previous concern with the term "fully funded" and what,
exactly, that meant.
2:10:19 PM
Co-Chair Neuman corrected that correspondence students
received less than $5,880 per year.
Representative Pruitt asked where the information the
administration would base their budget for FY 17 would come
from, and whether the administration would perform further
analysis on the funding formula.
Ms. Pitney responded that the administration expected that
the current fiscal climate would allow for savings in the
first year. She said that administration would continue
discussions with school districts concerning the need to
limit spending. She hoped that discussions pertaining to
learning outcomes would be fruitful in determining best
practices. She relayed that spending constraints in FY 17
were anticipated, but that education should be funded at
the highest possible level, and reductions minimized to the
greatest possible degree.
2:14:33 PM
Representative Gara asked whether Alaska ranked last in the
nation for third grade reading scores.
Commissioner Hanley replied that the exam that compared
that data was given to fourth grade students; Alaska was
near the bottom in the nation for fourth grade reading
scores.
Representative Gara asked whether it was an evidence-based
practice to teach to individual children and keep class
sizes small.
Commissioner Hanley replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara expressed great concern with the
proposed $48 million education budget cut.
Representative Wilson argued that money had been added
repeatedly to the education budget. She queried whether
test scores reflected funding levels.
Commissioner Hanley replied that scores had not greatly
improved, but the graduation rate continued to increase.
Representative Wilson asked whether the department had done
studies on the correlation between class size and impact on
learning.
Commissioner Hanley replied that a study had not been done.
He furthered that the differences between urban and rural
class demographics would make a class size study for the
entire state a difficult task.
Co-Chair Neuman recognized that, given the unique
geographic and cultural make-up of the state, it was
impractical to compare Alaska's education system to any
other state in the nation.
2:17:37 PM
Co-Chair Neuman spoke to the governor's request of $1
million in unrestricted federal receipts for 7 permanent,
full-time, front line social workers in the Office of
Children's Services (OCS). He stated that the funding could
be considered partial implementation of recommendations
from 2012 work load study. He said that in 2016 the
Conference Committee on the budget had added $1,746,600 in
unrestricted general funds, which had been enough funding
for 18 positions, and to begin implementation of the
study's recommendations. He added that in FY 15 the
legislature had enough funding for 15 full-time positions.
He relayed further funding history of the line item.
Vice-Chair Saddler queried the department's proposed source
for funding the $1 million for front line social workers.
Ms. Pitney answered that the increment was federal funding
that had come as part of another program, the delivery of
which had provided additional federal funds.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked which program the funds would come
from.
Ms. Pitney replied that the funding was Children's Health
Insurance Program (CHIP) funding.
Co-Chair Neuman asked about the plan for long-time funding
of the positions.
2:21:48 PM
SANA EFIRD, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND SOCIAL SERVICES (via teleconference), replied that the
money was CHIP performance bonus money that the department
earned by meeting certain criteria. She said that the one-
time funding could be used unrestricted for various
purposes.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how much of the CHIP money was
available and how long would those funds last.
Ms. Efird shared that the balance was slightly over $4
million. She stated that the department had been working to
find ways to maximize other federal funding. It had looked
at ways to free up general funds in FY 16, to fund child
advocacy centers, and to offset funding for additional OCS
positions. She explained that the he proposal was a stop-
gap to gain the additional positions needed to meet the
needs of the division.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the specific funding plan
for the future.
Ms. Efird answered that at the discretion of the
commissioner the money could be used again for the same
purpose. She related that the department was continually
looking for ways to free up general funds and maximize
federal funds and programs.
Ms. Pitney relayed that OCS had demonstrated need. She said
that the administration would look to find funds going
forward from the general fund or other fund sources. She
admitted that the funding was one-time, but that goal was
the safety of children in the system.
Vice-Chair Saddler understood that future general funds
would be sought to backfill the program.
Ms. Pitney replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Neuman lamented that finding consistent funding
for social programs was a problem for the committee.
2:27:37 PM
Representative Gattis wondered how much it cost the state
to find people that fit the criteria for the program.
Ms. Pitney deferred the question to Ms. Efird. She noted
that there had been general funds freed up during the
course of the legislative process because a way to have
federal funds cover a larger share of a specific program
had been discovered. She said that at that time, the
request was to use the saved general funds towards the
program; however, in the conference committee budget, the
Department of Health and Social Services general fund
reduction had been $92 million.
JON SHERWOOD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MEDICAID AND HEALTH CARE
POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), relayed that the CHIP performance bonus
awards were based on states experiencing enrollment
increases in their Medicaid program that had taken certain
steps to streamline Medicaid eligibility. He noted that
Alaska's CHIP program was a Medicaid expansion program. He
relayed that the program had experienced enrollment growth,
but that the department had not spent any additional money
to support enrollment activities and qualify for federal
funds.
2:31:34 PM
Co-Chair Neuman recognized Representative Claman in the
gallery.
Representative Gattis described the categorized the federal
funding for the foster programs as federal overreach.
Representative Gara asked whether the number of foster
youth had risen from 1,700 to 2,500 in the past several
years.
Ms. Efird replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara noted that as caseloads rose, it became
more difficult to find permanent homes for the children.
Ms. Efird replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara understood that Anchorage and Mat-Su
had caseloads that were 70 percent higher than the national
caseload recommendation.
CHRISTY LAWTON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), could not speak to a specific figure, but
purported that the number was higher than it should be,
nearing twice the national average.
Representative Gara relayed that OCS had qualified for the
replacement of $2.9 million in general funds with Temporary
Cash Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) bonus money,
freeing up the $2.9 million of general funds.
Ms. Efird explained that through performance based
budgeting and accountability efforts the department was
currently looking across divisions to find ways to maximize
various funding sources. She relayed that through a
collaboration between OCS, and the Division of Public
Assistance, it had been determined that current TANF
funding could be used to support the Child Advocacy Center
funding, currently general funds of $2.9 million, in the
OCS budget.
Representative Gara asked whether the department proposed
earlier in 2015 to use the $2.9 million in freed up general
funds to address that shortage of case workers at OCS.
Ms. Efird replied that the replacement of the $2.9 million
happened after the governor's proposed budget had been
before the legislature. She shared conversations with OCS
had resulted in the idea of freeing up the funds. She
relayed that the entire House Finance Committee had not
been directly contacted concerning the issue.
2:36:46 PM
Co-Chair Neuman noted that the committee had decided to use
the funds to reduce the overall budget.
Representative Gara asked whether the $2.9 million of TANF
money would remain available to fund the Child Advocacy
Center.
Ms. Efird replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara asked whether the number of children in
unstable homes would increase if OCS caseloads were not
reduced.
Ms. Lawton answered in the affirmative. She said that the
state would experience an increase in repeat maltreatment
and the rate of children entering into foster care. She
stressed that increased numbers would likely contribute
failing a federal audit, and that children would die as a
result of unmet needs.
Representative Gara understood that underfunding and
increasing case numbers would lead to casualties.
Ms. Lawton replied that children died regularly in the
state as a result of child abuse and neglect; more cases,
with insufficient resources, would contribute to a rise in
child fatalities.
Co-Chair Neuman believed that it was the job of the OMB
director to look at the overall state budget and to
determine what funds went to the different departments, and
then it was the department's commissioners decided where
the money was spent. He said that the legislature was
tasked with working from the governor's proposed funding
levels.
Ms. Pitney responded that he was correct. She shared that
the budget had been due 15 days after the new
administration had started, and that the best budget had
been put forward as was possible in that timeframe. She
relayed that DHSS was looking at ways to maximize the use
of other funds and that this opportunity that came
available prior to the governor's amendments. She said that
the $2.9 million in savings, plus $89 million additional
dollars, had been reduced from the DHSS budget in one year.
She stressed that there was $92 million less in the
conference committee budget for DHSS than there had been in
the FY15 management plan, a 7.4 percent decrease.
Co-Chair Neuman countered that all of those funds had not
been reduced by the legislature.
Ms. Pitney acquiesced that the governor's initial proposal
had included a $50 million reduction. She felt that
reducing the DHSS programs by $100 million would increase
the workload for the department's already limited
workforce. She lamented that the hope had been that the
legislature would support the use of the funds; however,
that had not been the case so the department was asking the
legislature to reconsider the previous decision.
2:42:51 PM
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that the legislature had a hard
job. He said that the administration needed to decide what
merited funding and then the legislature needed to work
through the budget and set appropriate funding levels. He
said that the bonus $2.9 million had been intended to be
used for advocacy centers, the department was not going to
use those funds specifically for advocacy centers, so the
House Finance Committee decided that those funds should be
used across the overall state budget.
Representative Wilson asked how many vacancies there were
currently at OCS.
Ms. Lawton replied that OCS typically carried a 20-25
percent vacancy level for front-line staff.
Representative Wilson asked how long it took to fill
vacancies at OCS.
Ms. Lawton answered that it took an average of 45 to 60
days in larger urban area offices; in rural areas it could
take up to 12 months.
Representative Wilson wondered whether the funds could be
used for anything other than frontline social workers.
Ms. Lawton deferred the question to Ms. Efird.
Representative Wilson surmised that the vacancies could be
difficult to fill.
2:46:19 PM
Ms. Lawton answered that in most cases in urban areas the
positions were not difficult to fill. She stated that
smaller, remote areas were more challenging. She furthered
that turnover was equally great in both areas. She did not
harbor concerns that the bulk of the positions would not be
filled. She reiterated that filling positions would take
longer in rural areas.
Representative Wilson understood that OCS had been working
with tribal organizations, be believed that ultimately
collaboration between the two groups was how the state
would move forward in protecting Alaska's children.
Co-Chair Neuman spoke to the difficulty of front-line
social worker jobs.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether the state was a signatory
to any state contract binding the state to the recommended
standards set out for OCS caseworkers and foster children.
Ms. Lawton answered no.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether the state had any legal
obligation to foster children that bound the legislature to
the standard.
Ms. Lawton replied that the state had no legal obligation
to follow the recommendations.
Vice-Chair Saddler observed that the state had many demands
and needs, but limited finances.
2:49:02 PM
Representative Munoz asked how many frontline social
workers were currently employed by the department.
Ms. Lawton replied 288.
Representative Munoz understood that 25 percent of the 288
positions were vacant, but had been planned for in the
budget.
Ms. Lawton replied yes.
Representative Munoz asked why the department was not more
aggressively trying to fill the positions.
Ms. Lawton rebutted that the department was aggressively
working to fill the positions and that some budgeting had
been based on anticipated vacancies.
Representative Munoz asked whether the turnover rate would
improve if the positions were filled, reducing the
caseload.
Ms. Lawton answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Neuman asked how many qualified applicants the
department currently had on file.
Ms. Lawton replied that she could not speak to the number
of pending applicants for current vacancies. She offered to
provide the information to the committee at a later date.
Co-Chair Neuman queried the level of difficulty in finding
applicants for the positions.
Ms. Lawton reiterated that in the most rural areas it was
difficult to fill positions.
Co-Chair Neuman assumed that the hard to fill positions
were accountable for the 25 percent vacancy rate.
Ms. Lawton agreed that those positions contributed to the
vacancy rate.
Co-Chair Neuman reiterated that the positions were hard to
fill because the job was difficult.
2:52:03 PM
Representative Kawasaki spoke to the minimum vacancy factor
listed in by OMB of no less than 4 percent for fulltime
positions of 51 or more, and no higher than 7 percent.
Ms. Pitney replied in the affirmative, from a budgeting
perspective. She deferred the question for further detail
to the department.
Ms. Efird clarified that in order to meet personal services
cost there was a vacancy rate considered. She said that the
25 percent vacancy that Ms. Lawton spoke of did not have
full funding for every position. She said that merit
increases needed to be taken into consideration for
personal services budgeting.
Representative Kawasaki understood that smaller caseloads
would equate to reduced turnover in the agency.
Ms. Lawton agreed.
Representative Gara asserted that turnover and the vacancy
rates were affected by the excessive caseloads; if the
number of caseloads was brought down, the vacancy rate
would decrease.
Ms. Lawton agreed.
Co-Chair Neuman lamented that there were not unlimited
funds to go around.
2:56:41 PM
Co-Chair Neuman shared that there was a request by the
Alaska State Troopers, Alaska Wildlife Troopers maintenance
contracts for Alaska Wildlife Trooper helicopters. The
request was to fund third-party maintenance contracts with
the agency's two primary search and rescue helicopters,
included in the governor's FY 16 endorsed budget as part of
a larger $2.4 million increment to expand the agency's
aircraft section in accordance with audit recommendations.
The original $2.4 million increment had been denied by the
legislature during the regular session. He understood that
the department was requesting $500,000 in undesignated
general funds.
GARY FOLGER, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
indicated that Co-Chair Neuman was correct.
Co-Chair Neuman acknowledged that Representative Johnson in
the gallery.
2:57:08 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked how many additional people
had been suggested by the original audit.
Commissioner Folger responded that the original audit had
recommended 12 or 14 full-time positions.
Representative Kawasaki asked what the department could
expect to get with the additional $500,000.
Commissioner Folger replied that the department needed
people with the skills necessary to maintain the latest
generation or aircraft.
2:58:11 PM
Representative Kawasaki spoke to relocation of helicopters,
which had left a vacancy. He wanted to know whether there
were other resources available for safety implementation.
Commissioner Folger stated that there were private entities
and medivac flights available. He related that there were
missions, such as active shooter calls, which were unique
to public safety.
2:59:02 PM
Representative Pruitt asked how many aircraft the state
currently owned.
Commissioner Folger replied that the department had 44
aircraft, the bulk of which were Super Cubs; the larger
assets included two King Airs, two A Star Helicopters, and
3 R-44 Helicopters.
Representative Pruitt wondered whether the $500,000 was for
a specific type of aircraft, and were all other aircraft
covered by already allocated funds.
Commissioner Folger stated that the additional funds would
be used for the maintenance contract, plus parts, of the A
Star Helicopters.
Representative Pruitt surmised that the legislature could
expect the number to be embedded in the budget.
Commissioner Folger replied in the affirmative.
Representative Pruitt asked what would happen if the money
was not allocated.
Commissioner Folger replied that without the funds there
would be a reduction of public safety services.
Representative Pruitt asserted that the state had worked
with one A Star Helicopter for many years. He wondered
whether the second aircraft was necessary given the fiscal
climate and the cuts made to other departments.
Commissioner Folger believed that the helicopters were
necessary.
Co-Chair Neuman asked whether the department charged for
search and rescue services.
Commissioner Folger replied in the negative.
Co-Chair Neuman asked whether the department could start
charging for search and rescue services.
Commissioner Folger answered in the affirmative. He said
that other states had fees associated with resource
licenses.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for additional information on how the
department could charge fees for search and rescue
services.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how the department had gotten by
with one A Star Helicopters in the past.
Commissioner Folger answered that the original aircraft
were military surplus. He said that the department had
done the best it could with limited resources.
Vice-Chair Saddler understood that the department had
gotten by with one helicopter in the past.
Commissioner Folger answered yes.
Representative Gattis thought that the state could save
money by farming maintenance jobs out to the private
sector. She said that her constituents believed that
private companies should be doing much of the search and
rescue work and that they "bitched and moaned" about the
number of aircraft owned by the state.
BERNARD CHASTAIN, CAPTAIN, ALASKA WILDLIFE TROOPERS,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference), responded
that the state was already soliciting third-party vendors
for work on some of the aircraft. He relayed that there
were no mechanics in Fairbanks to work on the aircraft
located there. He explained that the cost of the mechanic
for Fairbanks and Anchorage, and the third-party vendor
maintenance for both the Anchorage and the Fairbanks
helicopters would cost the requested $500,000.
3:07:45 PM
Representative Gattis asked whether the aircraft were sent
to mechanics with specific knowledge of each aircraft.
Mr. Chastain elucidated that legislative audits and the
NTSB investigation prior to the Helo-1 crash in 2013,
recommended that the staffing level had been inadequate for
the number of aircraft, and the department's
responsibilities to the state. He reminded the committee
that the department had reorganized as a result of the
investigation and audit work, and had brought a proposal to
the legislature for the reorganization; the request had
been denied. He stated that in order to comply with some of
the recommendations, mechanic work for the two A Star
Helicopters had been sent out to a third-party vendor. He
added that most of the maintenance for the department's
existing aircraft was contracted out throughout the state.
He relayed that the department continually chartered their
aircraft throughout the state from third-party vendors, for
a variety of reasons.
Representative Gattis asked whether the helicopters were
stored in Fairbanks, rather than Anchorage, because that
was where the mechanic was located.
Mr. Chastain clarified that the two helicopters were
located in Anchorage and Fairbanks, the maintenance could
occur anywhere in the state.
Representative Wilson solicited the opinion of Senator
Donald Olson.
Senator Olson echoed the words of Mr. Chastain from the
gallery.
Representative Wilson wondered whether all of the aircraft
for the department could be privately chartered. She
wondered whether a study had been done on using only
private vendors.
Mr. Chastain replied that the department had looked into
chartering flights. He said that it had been difficult to
find a charter could accommodate the sometimes dangerous
circumstances in certain law enforcement situations. He
stated that often charters were busy with already scheduled
full revenue trips, which made them unavailable. He related
that the department had considered hiring a charter company
to have an aircraft on standby, but the expense was too
high.
Representative Wilson requested numbers comparing life
threatening emergency calls and lesser emergency calls. She
felt that Alaskan's had become irresponsible executing
outdoor activities, expecting to be rescued for free.
Co-Chair Neuman believed that the subject warranted further
discussion during budget subcommittee meetings for FY 17.
Co-Chair Neuman continued to the Council on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA) request of $1.5 million
of incremental, one-time funding. He said that the funding
had been previously included in the governor's FY 16
endorsed budget as a transfer to the council's base budget,
primarily for prevention programs. He relayed that the
funding had been converted to a one-time increment in the
House, and had died in conference committee.
3:14:57 PM
Ms. Pitney deferred questions to Lauree Morton. She
stressed the area was one of real need in the state. She
explained that in FY 15, the funding amount for CDVSA had
been $3 million; the administration had originally reduced
that to $1.5 million, and sought to more tightly align the
council and prevention activates. She shared that the
administration had focused on prevention programs and
awareness as state DVSA statistics were "off the charts on
the wrong side". She asserted that the administration
wanted to keep the program a high priority.
Co-Chair Neuman asked what the state had done to reduce
incarceration rates. He asked pointedly what the commission
had done to make recommendations to the legislature, and to
assist the Department of Law, and to craft legislation to
improved incarceration rates. He recited some statistics
concerning sexual assault and domestic violence.
3:19:12 PM
LAUREE MORTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
agreed that the numbers were too high. She explained that
the primary responsibility of the council had been to fund
shelters and rape crisis centers that acted as emergency
rooms, taking in victims of sexual assault and battery. She
believed that legislature and administration had been
consistently dedicated assuring that help would be
available when necessary. She relayed that the make-up of
the council included representatives from the Department of
Law (LAW), Department of Public Safety (DPS), Department of
Corrections (DOC), Department of Education (DEED), DHSS,
and 4 public members. She stated that the board met 4 times
per year to review the actions the state should be taking
to work to reduce DVSA crimes. She related that the recent
focus of the board had been on primary prevention. She
relayed that the legislature had allocated money in 2009,
specifically for primary prevention statewide; Governor
Parnell's Choose Respect Initiative began in 2010, and
devoted more monetary resources to primary prevention
efforts. She avouched that due to the council's work
awareness and conversation surrounding the issues had
increased in communities, and sub-communities, throughout
the state. She believed that LAW and DOC should speak to
incarceration rates. She believed that, statutorily, the
council had consistently looked to ways to strengthen
resources for victims to aid them in escaping DVSA crimes.
She noted that the council had recommended legislation that
protected victims from being charged for sexual assault
forensic exams, as well as legislation to assure that
insurance companies did not try to categorize the results
of abuse as a pre-existing condition. She added that the
council had brought forward recommendations for victim
housing; there was currently a priority in Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation (AHFC) to assist victims who have
escaped their abuser. She stated that the council strongly
believed that devoting money to primary prevention efforts
was the state's best hope in curbing domestic violence and
sexual assault. She contended that the council had been
recognized nationally as being on the forefront in
prevention efforts for domestic violence and sexual
assault. She said that several evidence based
social/emotional learning programs were being pilot tested
in the state, and that the $1.5 million would allow the
council to implement the vetted programs across the state.
She related that 81 percent of the council's remaining
funding went to shelters and rape crisis centers, federal
dollars were used for first responder training and provided
legal advocacy for victim services and, statutorily, could
not be used for prevention efforts. She stressed that the
$1.5 million would further the efforts to stop domestic
violence and sexual assault.
3:26:13 PM
Co-Chair Neuman countered that regardless of what the
council had accomplished, the state still led the nation in
levels of domestic violence and sexual assault. He demanded
further information on past funding levels for the program
and turn around on investment. He queried the total
operating expenses of the council. He assumed that 20
percent of the $18 million that the department received was
used to fund administrative costs.
Ms. Morton answered that the council had approximately $3.7
million in federal money that was used for programs; for
example, first responder training. She said that the
anticipated budget for the council in FY 15 was
$18,243,000. She admitted that she would need to get back
to the committee with the actual numbers.
Co-Chair Neuman commented that the chair of the council did
not know what the council's expenditures were. He felt that
the funding that the council received should be taken away
and spent in another area of the department.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether the council had
recommendations for specific legislation to improve the
DVSA statistics in the state. He wondered how much money
the council spent on prevention efforts.
Ms. Morton answered that the funds that the council had to
spend on prevention had been allocated through the Choose
Respect Initiative; $157,000 were received in 2009, which
went into the base. She furthered that the federal funds
available for prevention were through the Family Violence
Prevention and Services Act; 75 percent of those funds had
to go to residential services, and 25 percent could go to
prevention activities.
Vice-Chair Saddler probed the monetary amount associated
with the percentages.
Ms. Morton replied approximately $650,000 per year.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Ms. Morton to provide the council's
budget to the committee.
Ms. Morton agreed to supply the information.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether the council received any
money through the Violence Against Women Act.
Ms. Morton answered yes; the council received funds through
the Services Training Officers and Prosecutors (STOP),
which was a formula grant awarded to each state. She
explained that the funding had the base amount of $600,000,
with a population formula distribution if Congress
allocated money above the base. She relayed that Alaska
varied between $750,000 and $825,000. She shared that the
funds were federally regulated in their distribution, 30
percent was designated to strengthening victim services, 25
percent to law enforcement, 25 percent to prosecution, and
5 percent to judiciary funding.
Co-Chair Neuman interjected, reiterating his request for
the council's budget. Again, Ms. Morton agreed to provide
the information at a later date.
Representative Gara asked about the number of rural
communities in the state that had no law enforcement.
Commissioner Folger replied approximately 50 percent.
Representative Gara asked whether one of the most effective
things to prevent sexual assault would be to have at least
one law enforcement officer per community.
Commissioner Folger replied that studies had shown that
communities felt safer when there was a representative from
law enforcement in their vicinity.
Representative Gara asked for the exact number of rural
communities without a law enforcement presence.
Commissioner Folger agreed to provide the information.
3:34:00 PM
Representative Wilson thought that services for victims
were nice, but wondered about incarceration levels.
Commissioner Folger replied that additional funding was
needed in order to prosecute perpetrators. He lamented that
prevention was hard to measure.
Representative Wilson questioned whether more perpetrators
were being caught as a result of current laws.
Co-Chair Neuman opined that the issue was difficult and
urgent.
Co-Chair Neuman discussed the schedule for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:38:00 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:37 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 1001 House_Fin Response to Questions 5 6 15 docx.pdf |
HFIN 5/7/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB1001 |